SILVER is exactly on its 2001-2013 exponential price rise CURVE median, represented in this semi log plot as straight line:

Movements above and below exponential price rise return to the exponential price raise MEDIAN, what we see since 2011 as well. They can overshoot to below, as in 2008, but so far the MEDIAN of the fork after 2011 deviation (overbought) has withstood (on parallel line slightly below it) 4 monthly attempts to break it. There could be more, but as time goes, the target moves higher.

Today this parallel support line has value of 29,40. That is the bottom which in my opinion should not be taken out ( on monthly basis) in February as long as fundamentals ( USG debt ) show no sign of rapid improvement (stabilization/reduction). I have to check if relative value of USG debt to GDP has better correlation with gold prices or as good as the absolute value in USD. It could be so, as it makes sense in terms of debt serviceability /instability risk.

So my claims of nonexistent long term capping as it can not force the fundamentals is supported by this simple chart, and even medium term capping looks more like normal correction. Daily trade tricks happen as they should , but, short of silver crossing 44 USD in Feb -March ( which I do not believe will happen as the resolution of debt issues and 2011 correction is around June-August 2013) there seems no major reasons to see INCREASED or ACCELERATED systemic problems compared to how they are perceived by majority of investors. Until then, its all the normal short term future guessing game with even shorter term trading games.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

My shorterm view ( until the USG for whatever reason ignites FISCAL spending- I believe during or after summer 2013) is:

Given the new and historically unique monetary paradigm the USA has been operating on (USG treasury or debt based world monetary system) , its understanding is not complete in many circles, or its cynical nature is hidden behind some murky theories instead of telling it like it is ( e.g. M.Hudson - Super imperialism- beautiful and spot on, blank language). So, returning to the monetary side of USD, any signs of improved USG ability to tax people despite the fact that deficit is large and debt is still growing will be interpreted as strength for the system , and correspondingly , must coincide with new lows in gold/silver prices. Again, despite the debt, whose buildup has slowed, the focus should shift to the basis- the ability of the USG to enforce tax payments in USD and use them to fix deficit, i.e. reduce annual deficits-NOT eliminate- as the USG debt as total does not matter much in this system- its the doubts about the system the debt increases generate that matter. That was done when tax part of fiscal cliff was increased, so that taxes are higher now. If now, with sequester, also the yearly deficit is cut, the reaction should be that trust in USG system increases and gold drops.

In short, as long as investors feel the USG and FED together has some degree of control over the USG debt based monetary system, which they seemed to be losing since 2001 - and even more so in 2010 - now when the time has passed things does not look so immediately dire anymore. The fact that FED has been saying there will be no inflation and there has not been in real things- but has been in financial assets- which FED also promised ( wealth effect) has given some credibility back to the FEDs ability to control things after wading into new experimental tool usage, and that means that when FED is talking now of exit, reduction of monetization and possible rate increase- it is also taken with more seriousness than earlier -because the waters being navigated ( One country debt based world monetary system) is totally new in the history of mankind. That gives FED some bit more assertiveness and, since QE itself has failed since QE3 to raise gold prices- all this gives bearish outlook to PMs.

As I mentioned in the beginning, that is medium term prognosis as sooner or later fiscal spending will be forced to be released, and that is the real inflation threat as opposed to QE-and also the real recovery tool that ONLY the USG can utilize. Its unique situation and i have little doubt that once the FED and USG feels they can control things, they will do something more for economy (read employment) than until now as 2014 elections come closer. Congress will SPEND (dems) or cut taxes (REPs) , or both (Both) . But not now. They have to be sure they can charge the rest of the world and still maintain the image of being in control of the situation in front of the USA voter and international finance. And for that, they need bit more time and theories/propaganda that support it.

Looking at the political side of this, once started, they will have to spend /cut taxes until 2016 elections. Only after that there can be some attempts to reduce money supply.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

I think there has to be something alike windfall tax on gold sales to prevent USD coming into population hands if it sells gold at 10 000 USD /oz to be inflationary. Let us say government takes 90% of capital gains made on gold and silver away with this tax. These OLD USD can then be used to pay down USD debt before moving on to gold standard.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

No, not yet. Obvious they have moved into future, even though they were quit stretched out compared to other prediction, but I am not confident about the charts . They come as inspiration..May be one day some price action in some of charts will trigger it, and than the rest of charts will follow.

The one I still believe in is USG debt projection . But, even there, the surge to the upside in steeper slope will happen later than I projected.

I could say they are in general all just delayed, but I do not feel sure about it, so I have to study, think and wait for an eureka moment.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

Ivars, just tossing some thoughts out there. There's a specific scenario that I think has come into play that Ive recently assigned a higher probability to. I think too many market participants have been projecting a gold blow off top late 2015/early 2016. The market has always had the tendency to burn the most participants. Because Im fairly new to the market (started investing in late 2004) I dont have first account knowledge of previous market cycles (anyone feel free to shed light here). Looking at the equity bull of 82-99, we have a lengthy correction of about 4 years from the 1987 mid-cycle peak. You had several tests near the 1987 high within the 2-4 after but no decisive breakout until about four years later. The last gold bull also had a lengthy period of correction to really test the conviction of gold bulls of that era. You had a midcycle high in very late 1974 and then again it took 4 years to decisively breakout to new highs. Even 1978 had a retest of the 1974 high. So in essense it is perhaps the case that those who pull the puppet strings have decided theres still too many golden bulls with conviction and they need that theta burn to weed them out. Im curious however of cycles like the Nikkei in the 1980s. There really wasnt a deep lengthy correction during that bull cycle. It would be my conjecture that bull market didnt have a whole lot of convicted bulls midcycle , like the two aforementioned, and was just allowed to run the whole way through without much lengthy testing (hopefully someone who was a market participant at the time can shed some light here). Given this observation. I think it is a probably scenario to correction 4 years out to late summer of 2015 and then begin the run to the cycle peak in 2019 (would coincide with the projected sunspot cycle bottom of 2019). Thoughts?

I agree that this correction will be longer though I can not see how it can go on in gold longer than early 2014. In silver it could last longer as the spike was dramatic, but then usually if things turn around, silver might be even the first to react.

As to sunspots, they have definitely huge influence on everything that goes on on the Earth. If you take people who lived in different times randomly and just place on one axis length of their lives, on other the number of people who have lived such length on time ( say minimum size of such bin is 1 year) . What has been found out, is that there is a clear modulation of resulting curve with frequency 2,7 and 5,5 years which corresponds to higher harmonics of sunspot 11 year half cycle exactly. So every death is influenced by sunspot situation.

Does that mean that 2019 has to be by itself a year that has to affect some exact market I am not so sure. But gold bull market started at the top of sun cycle and now we are in the bottom...starting to move up again.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

My favorite weather forecaster Piers Corbyn uses sunspot activity modulated by the position of the moon. He gets much better correlation to the climate and weather than the carbon dioxide level models.

... is projected to have a peak the Fall of this year. Would be interesting if the bond bubble pops then? It seems like the cycle tops and bottoms coincide with major events, but then again there are so many markets in the world that it can all just be seen as data snooping.

I have to say I have tried few times to read FOFOA , some times for quite long time, and just can not understand WHAT is the basic ideas of the theory as it is so dragged out that its unreadable. Another was better, so was FOA, but I still do not get it, really. I must be dumb.

I think they say gold for oil is the basis of everything. But how, why, what- I can really not understand their premises. I must say that FOFOA is the most ununderstandable mix of sentences I have ever seen. I understand that futures markets (paper) in gold may suppress ( or elevate?) gold prices as that is what futures markets are for, and that gold is not a real commodity that would need a futures market due to its high stock to flow ratio. On other hand, most of deals- >95% in gold with delivery are done in London OTC spot market, so I can not believe that futures are really setting the price of spot ( hence gold is in backwardation) , its the other way around.

All in all I am too stupid to figure out FOFOA's theories.

If moving gold price to 55 000 USD formally would settle debt problems- I do not believe in it for a second. To settle debt problems, first, there has to be a problem - but is there really- second, creditors have to accept it.

Inflating gold price 30 times and paying out for the USG debts is just nonsense. FOFOA is so difficult to read that I have not been able to figure out where they come to that idea, but even freegold today has price around 1600 USD/oz. Is it not freegold? It does not back currencies, but its has floating price vs currencies. Or is GLD Freegold? So with the USD gold piles, USG can not pay down anything- nor it should yet- no one is demanding that, just a normal rollover and reasonable stability of USD . The rates are low- so has been Japanese - You do not want USG treasuries at so low interest rate= DO NOT EXPORT TO the USA. Simple. Deficits do not drive Interest rates. Here is Japan:

and interest rates on 10 year govt bonds:

There is definitely no correlation, if not even opposite correlation.

One more thing people do not take into account is that USD money supply extended by FED with QE is going into financial asset price inflation- so there USD is losing its value, but, as these are counted as assets for some reason, it is good inflation? At least GDP wise.

The QE does not even appear in commodity markets where one would expect to see them if someone was willing to take the risk to try to bid up their prices with debt. Therefore there is no CPI inflation- all excess gets eaten up in financial assets, including stocks, treasuries and MBS, may be capital export markets, while private individuals and businesses deleverage and do not spend.

Hence the question of USD devaluation is more complex one nowadays when financial assets are considered not on liability side- their inflation seemingly adds to wealth out of printing press-even if they are all pushed up by more debt.

So if one takes Money supply then it has to be divided not only by goods and services but also financial asset prices. And then everything will match even with official numbers. I wonder WHY financial assets are not taken into account when calculating inflation potential from Money supply. They are buy no means a small market. E.g USD has devaluated in stock market 100%=> inflation there is 100% over 4 years= about 20% a year. Same 20% a year in treasuries ( from 4% to 2% in 4 years=price doubling). Same in MBS. That is where the USA and others have inflation. Now the question is to figure out how that inflation which is based on debt ( not on spending) influence the overall value of the USD? It seems it does not. Spending ( fiscal) does, financial asset inflation does not. Probably ( I am just guessing) because it is a zero sum game in terms of USD value...As USD goes down 2 times vs USG treasuries, USG treasuries go up 2 times in USD, so no one gains or looses anything, it just perception that might change-the perception in private sector and government that it can afford more spending from debt.

Well it does not work with private sector (works partly) , or will not work for long as savings in households again go down too fast.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

GSR has obviously turned around, so a slow and restricted short rally may be up to 30,5 in silver and 1620 in gold is coming-in action already. For some computer related reason i can not upload my charts confirming this, but may be I will find way out later:

Just wanted to make clear one thing that is debated here but not rationally:

1) Bernanke has succeeded in putting up stock market and avoiding inflation, as he promised, and Treasury interest rates does not depend in debt, as was also claimed and is targeted by FED

2) general direction of PMs will be bearish with small bull runs until some of QEs may spill over into income spending growth or private debt growth or speculation with commodities from gains in stock market; the limit in gold is about 1450, in silver 20.

3) But gains in stock market are concentrated in the hands of creditors, and they are not going to risk them playing commodity games in stagnating economy

4) There can not be spending increase without income increase, and there can not be income increase without unemployment decrease-and that is where Bernanke had failed as neither unemployment has gone down ( taking into account participation rate) nor are his wealthy gainers interested in driving up business costs, nor lower income consumers are interested into going deeper into private debt

5) So there is also no expected tax revenue to increase government spending without moving further into deficit; the whole environment is deflationary..so are PMs. Good for bankers and the top 0,01% or so.

6) Sooner or later the Congress and Obama will have to do something over jobs and income. Elections are coming, nothing to show. That can be only achieved via increased government deficit spending which is the real one to cause uneasiness about inflation and trust in USG treasury based monetary system

7) This spending despite the rhetoric will start I think before 2014 elections. The congress will try to reduce taxes, Obama to increase spending as, except for stocks, the whole thing with maximal QE will stall and start to fall back as incomes does not increase, so consumption and taxes will suffer.

8) Only with increased fiscal spending the PMs will take off again.

So I would suggest to stop playing with dreams and look for signs of fiscal indiscipline, in any country ( Japan e.g.) which will try to inflate their economies by fiscal spending and deficit increase. In these currencies gold will move up. Sooner or later, especially if such policies are short term successful in increasing consumer spending and investment-why should not they?- USG will have to follow.

Before that, no way USD will fall or PMs in USD will return on long bull run taking out previous highs, Sinclair's birthday or not.

Guess it pays to be more realistic then spend time dreaming up theories that all point into desired direction.

Sorry for bluntness. Claims this can not continue because it can not are invalid. Claims that markets will take care of this forgets who manages the markets. Vigilantes has no power over Japanese or USA Treasury rates, as world has I hope learned by now.

Does not mean one has to sell stacks. There must be a moment soon enough (< 1 year?) when this gold will look relatively cheap, just please look for true causes. They are not in the current agenda in any country, except in Japan. Fiscal easing is what must be looked for.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

Money supply inflation- I have never understood why money supply is divided only into wages and commodities prices? Where does the real and obvious MEGA inflation of financial assets that are pushed up by debt figures into money supply-inflation relation?

What financial asset price push up does ( and it USES Money supply to do it) is to transfer the surplus generated by real economy into debt servicing fee, thus in fact, putting a cost into a real economy, a RENT, free lunch for creditors. And this is a process with positive feedback- there is less and less creditors on one side on the balance sheet and more and more debtors on the other side as the total value of balance sheet continues to grow.

So, the Mises theory that money supply defines inflation- does it take into account the inflation of financial assets? If it does , its true, but in what current economic textbook inflation of asset prices would be considered a bad thing akin to commodity inflation?

It is considered in fact wealth, but this wealth is pushed up by debt spent on these assets, so in the end this wealth transfers into the debt payment income, or rent, to creditors, and cost for all debtors and economy as a whole as , as was demonstrated here, compound interest can outstrip any real economic growth, leading to debt cost going over the surplus generated by real economy, and creating debt deflation.

So much about money supply reflecting inflation. Yes, if financial asset prices are taken into account. No, if they are not. As we see today. Money supply moves into financial assets, inflating them, but velocity of money in the real economy is falling like rock, and there is no inflation there from money supply.

I wonder, WHY its so difficult to include debt and financial machinations in economy and include their effects as well?

As Hudson says, the devil has won when no one sees him anymore. The same he says about the damage debt overhead into financial assets does to economy and incomes- but no theory includes that aspect that benefits bankers and financial speculators and creditors in general and where people have willingly accepted "free markets" - free to being planned by "invisible hand" - the hand of financial rentiers- new feudal class that does ALL the planning down to decisions of sovereign governments - but " graciously" does not claim it- attributing it to "self -regulating" mechanisms, e.g. like the bailout they received from the USA taxpayers in 2008 and the free USD flow they continue to receive to plunge for higher returns abroad to try to move their equity into positive territory which is happening as useless unproductive COST to everyone else on this planet.

But, as it has been said, what is being negotiated is the conditions others surrender to this USA policy- because the USA has unlimited amount of most powerful ammo- in economic warfare -warfare that overtakes assets without wars- infinite keystroke generation of USDs.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

Where M is money supply measure, V is money velocity in 1/year (turnaround rate in economy, by the way 1/V= average hoarding length) , P are prices and T are transactions, BUT, as prices here are only commodities and products and wages. Financial assets are not included, hence formula gives wrong picture about potential inflation:

P= MV/T - since T does not include financial asset transactions ( which in fact are 80% of all monetary transactions), P goes to sky-hyperinflation- which is just plain wrong.

A simplest assumption would be to conclude that real economy and financial overhead economy functions independently in monetary terms in first approximation. Then reasonable formula would be:

Then money supply would be divided between ( as it obviously is from QE) inflation of financial assets (stocks, bonds, real estate) which has been 20%year in stocks and bonds and roughly neutral in real estate since 2009 , and inflation in real economy prices which is roughly CPI plus fuel plus food.

The fact of separation in case of QE is true as printing has not lead to increase in debt in private sector, and printing can achieve consumption increase only via debt increase. As that is not happening, QE money is rotating in financial sphere, generating interest rent to the wealthy.

I have never understood HOW and why the financial overhead has been integrated in normal economy as wealth creating by asset inflation. As it is all based on debt, and debt compound interest grows exponentially, such formula as MV=PT are correct only for a limited period where surplus from productive economy IS able to finance interest. But , due to exponential character of debt (surplus was growing exponentially only because of discovery of coal and oil ) , sooner or later debt rent will exceed surplus, especially if the asset prices are pushed up by Greenspanomics or Bernankenomics.

Hence, the formula that excludes financial asset price from it is correct only for a limited periods of time where real economy has as fast growth as compound interest. As soon as real economy falters, debts are not paid, asset prices go into ground, "wealth" disappears, and assets move to the creditors.

Real economy is economy that increase wealth by adding value via capital investments and labor creating products and services needed in the economy. Real estate asset prices actually should fall relative to income (wages) in such economy.

But, financial sector of economy thinks differently and has taken then control over from productive sectors. So here we are, with 2 formulas that lead to planning by financial sector and movement of real wealth from down to UP.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

Not a bad overlay either-sorry for quality- bank excess reserves with FED (QE) and with a little delay- DJIA. I am going to work on this to make image better but overall things are rather predictable s QE circulates, turns over in financial asset sector, not real economy:

Its going to be a clear bubble with QE3..And they are looking for them and can not really find. And as buble, it will break- not yet, but when spike gets unsustainable and QE is not increased.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

Long followed GSR has completed its turnaround with expected volatility, now the direction short term is set, 52,5 seems to be next target. Then at can bounce back up.

Silver has formed yesterday a new 4 h fork that shows there is now upside move coming at least to 30,4 with max target around 31 short term, may be 32 within March, may be up to FOMC. Volatility shall subside a bit.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

After identifying the correlation between the driver (QE-> reserves of banks with FED) and consequences ( Stocks, bonds ) I tried to put together a forecast for S&P assuming QE3 continues as promised.

First, it may take longer than we think for stocks to tank, so there is still a ride possible move further up into 1800 territory and into 2014 with natural pullbacks (within triangle).

Second, S&P is now entering bubble territory (as more people realize its worth to ride with FED) with a potential spike even higher then indicated triangle and then a crash as QE3 with fixed money input speed can not sustain a bubble-meaning it may end before end of 2013, but close to it. Equally, the withdrawal of QE3 will cause collapse.

Whatever the timing, collapse of stock bubble would mean practically the repeat of 2008 only this time with no QE left or -> need for exponentially accelerating QE instead of linear. If there is no such acceleration, bubble bursts, USG will need to kickstart extra deficit spending within the range of QE as wealth effect benefits ( political) will be gone.

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

I added a line on S&P so You could see why I think we are entering a non-sustainable bubble phase in S&P right now. It can still go much higher and longer, but the rate of increase will absorb all QE3 and more and than crash IF QE3 is not increased proportionally. Increasing QE3 by buying more debt will move PM up immediately. Increasing by buying stocks directly- possible but ... Will not look very convincing for stories about companies making profits because of economy:).

Some people who remember me from few years ago know that I am not so bad at predicting bubbles and their crashes, so I will try to do it again:)

__________________

Any future development must involve changing something which people have never challenged up to the present,and which will not be shown up by an axiomatic formulation.

DISCLAIMER: The charts and analysis provided here are not recommended for trading purposes. Trade at your own risk. The Turd provides knowledge not direction. Turd holds no liability for your trades and decisions but he's happy to take credit when credit is due, particularly through the "donate" button. Read more...